Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE E. PADMANABHAN
R.Varadachari - Appellant
Versus
The Management of the Press Trust of India & Others - Respondents
W.P. NOS. 10076 OF 1998 & 14576 OF 1999, W.P. NO. 10076 OF 1998
Decided On : 06 February 2003
WORKMAN - Employment Dispute - The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, The Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 - Section 2(s), Section 2(f), Section 17(2) - The court discussed the definitions of 'workman' and 'working journalist' under the respective acts and held that the petitioner was not entitled to the claimed reliefs as he did not fall under the definitions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a former employee of a news agency, filed two petitions challenging the denial of promotion and claiming various benefits. The Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court dismissed the claims, stating that the petitioner was not a workman or a working journalist as defined under the acts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner did not meet the criteria to be considered a workman or a working journalist as defined under the acts. Therefore, the claims for promotion and benefits were rejected.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner qualified as a workman and a working journalist under the relevant acts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the definitions of 'workman' and 'working journalist' under the acts and concluded that the petitioner did not meet the criteria for either category, leading to the rejection of the claims.
Final Decision: Both writ petitions were dismissed, and the court upheld the findings of the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, stating that the petitioner was not entitled to the claimed reliefs.
1. In W.P. No.10076 of 1998, the petitioner, R.Varadachari has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records in I.D. No.53/91 dated 12.3.97 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, the 3rd respondent herein, and quash the same.
2. In W.P. No.14576/98, the very same petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the award dated 15.2.97 made in W.J. No.3 of 1990 on the file of the Labour Court and quash the same.
CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER IN W.P. NO.10076/1998
3. The petitioner joined the Press Trust of India, the first respondent on 13.12.1958 and he was superannuated on 31.8.1998 on his completing 60 years. The first respondent is a non-profit making concern, which is headed by a General Manager appointed by the Board of Directors. The first respondent is a news agency entrusted with the collection and distribution of news to its clients. The petitioner joined the first respondent as a Sub-Editor on 13.2.1952. The petitioner was promoted as Chief Sub-Editor and was the Foreign Correspondent in 1963 and posted as Regional Manager for the Southern States on 1.7.1980, which post of Regional Manager he held for eight years. The petitioner held the post till 1.9.1988, the date on which he demitted office on superannuation. The petitioner was superseded and less merited juniors were promoted. The National Union of Journalists (Tamil Nadu) on behalf of the petitioner raised an industrial dispute against the unfair denial and illegal suppression and promotion of eleven less merited junior colleagues between 1984 and 1988. There was a conciliation. The petitioners retirement is not a bar to raise the dispute, as even after retirement, he falls under the classification of workman as defined under Section 2 (s) of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
4. The State Government made a reference consequent to the failure of conciliation in G.O. D No.850 Labour and Employment Department dated 27.8.1991 to the first respondent. The issue referred reads thus :-
"Whether the action of the management in with-holding promotion of Mr.R.Varddachari as Assistant General Manager or as Chief News Editor in preference to Mr.M.D.Prabhu and Mr.Srivatsava and also Mr.Varadachari's subsequent supersession is justified ? If not, to what relief he is entitled to ?"
5. Respondents 2 and 3 filed a detailed objections, besides raised legal objections as well. Before the first respondent, the writ petitioner examined himself as W.W.1 and marked Exs.W-1 to W-42, while the management has not let in any evidence, either oral or documentary. The first respondent Labour Court framed the following point for consideration :-
"Whether the action of the management in with-holding promotion of Mr.R.Varddachari as Assistant General Manager or as Chief News Editor in preference to Mr.M.D.Prabhu and Mr.Srivatsava and also Mr.Varadachari's subsequent supersession is justified ? If not, to what relief he is entitled to ?"
The first respondent answered the point against the writ petitioner and dismissed the claim. Being aggrieved by the said award dated 12.3.1997, W.P. No.10076 of 1998 has been preferred.
CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER IN W.P. NO.14576/1999
6. In W.P. No.14576/99, the very same petitioner challenged the rejection of his claim by the first respondent and held that the writ petitioner is not entitled to any relief by way of award dated 15.2.1999. The said rejection of claim in W.J. No.3 of 1990 is being challenged. According to the petitioner, he was a working journalist as defined under Section 2 (f) of The Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, as amended by Act 36 of 1981. The petitioner was working in Chennai Office of the Southern Region as Regional Manager (South) with his principal function as Chief of Southern Region News Bureau.
7. The petitioner started his career as Sub Editor in the year 1952 and he earned promotio
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
